Loading...
07-20-94 PCCITY OF OTSEGO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF JULY 20, 1994 AT 8PM REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION CARL SWENSON WILL CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER: Chair Swenson called the meeting to order at 8PM ROLL CALL: ING ROSKAFT CARL SWENSON DENNIS MC ALPINE ARLEEN NAGEL/ALT GENE GOENNER BRUCE RASK Bob Kirmis, NAC and Elaine Beatty, Deputy Clerk/Zoning Adm were present from Staff. Norman F Freske, Mayor, Larry Fournier, and Doug Lindenfelser, Council Members were also present. MINUTES OF JULY 6. 1994 ING ROSKAFT MOTIONED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES AS WRITTEN. DENNIS MCALPINE SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 1 HEARING FOR BRUCE AND MARY LUBKE, 9957 65TH ST NE. ALBERTVILLE, 'VIN 55301 PID #'S 118-800-344100 AND #118-800-344102 UNPLATTED LAND IN SECTION 34, TWP 121, RANGE 24. THIS IS FOR A PUD/REZONING TO ACCOMMODATE AN EXISTING HOME EXTENDED BUSINESS: Carl Swenson explained how the Hearing would be conducted. Bob Kirmis from NAC explained the request. The City recommends the application of the PUD Rezoning. He explained NAC's Report of July 14, 1994. He also explained that Mr Lubke had come forward to the Staff Meeting to discuss his illegally established Home Extended Business. What exists is a garage which was used with the Lubke Residence. The garage was used for the catering business. Over the years it has expanded. The business employs 17 people. It is a full fledged business. Staff feels the PUD is appropriate. It accommodates the catering business, even though the City has the right to shut them down. It allows the City to impose certain requirements. Screening of outdoor storage, etc. It also allows the termination of the use at the time Mr Lubke retires. Staff feels the PUD is a compromise but the best way to go in this matter. The operation itself, the commercial bldg is used to store catering vehicles. There is a kitchen and administration is conducted from this garage. We have recommended approval upon the 24 conditions as read from NAC's Report of July 14, 1994: 1- 24, Pages 2, 3 and 4. Bob Kirmis read and explained the 24 conditions. No. 10 see the memo from Dave Licht of July 20, 1994 regarding termination of the use. 17. Swimming pool encroaches into the side lot line easement which is shared by the two properties. CITY OF OTSEGO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF JULY 20, 1994 AT 8PM - PAGE 2 - Comments from the City Eng: He recommends that the Wright County Engineer provides comments for Co Rd 37. right of way needs, and the residence entrance be restricted to Kadler Ave. Also if the property is to be combined, the easement between the two parcels should be vacated. Drainage is adequate. Septic and drainfields, any alternate systems should be located and shown on the plan. They should be evaluated and any corrective action should be taken. The diked pond should be identified. Chair Swenson asked if there were any questions. Beatty noted the proper publications have been made, and posting was done. HEARING OPEN TO THE Pt,BLIC: No comments HEARING CLOSED AND BROUGHT BACK TO THE PC Bruce Rask asked about the skating rink/depression. Mr Lubke said it is a skating rink and flooded every winter. Gene Goenner: Rec #7 if one or either parcel is sold screening should be provided. He sees no reason for #7. Bob Kirmis agreed, but the thought was regardless, considering the swimming pool next to it should have some screenage because of the large accessory structure. Bruce Lubke said if he sells it all would go. At least the two acres. The pool is 4' into the easement. Carl Swenson asked Gene Goenner if he wants #7 out. He felt it should be out. He said it is the persons prerogative if he has it or not. Bruce Lubke asked about the access to residential property on Co 37. He has a mentally retarded child. He was asked to put the road in by the schoolbus co. She pulls into the driveway to get access for his son. Ing Roskaft felt that should be cleared with the County. Bruce Lubke said he felt it should be clarified by the Co and if they have to take it out they can. It has been there for 21 or 22 years. Chair Swenson asked what the P.C. felt about leaving the drive in? Ing Roskaft said the future widening of 37, it does not have very wide shoulders, probably some adjustment will have to take place on both sides of the road. He does not know the timetable on that. If it is beneficial for the Schoolbus pickup it should be allowed. No. 11 should be eliminated. McAlpine said item #5. Are we telling Mr Lubke he has to put special gravel down there? I don't see a problem. Bob Kirmis said it is because of the adjacent property owners, so they are not affected. This is required by all commercial businesses. It is right out of the ordinances. There is red rock on that drive now said Lubke. He has no problem with dust. Bob Kirmis said that meets the intent of the ordinance. If a problem arises the City can look at this. If there is a dust problem the Cite has this condition to fall back on. Gene Goenner talked about what creates a dust problem. CITY OF OTSEGO PLA_NNLNG COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF JULY 20, 1994 AT 8PM - PAGE 3 - #15. said Dennis McAlpine. Any smoke, order, or noise from the catering facility. What are we looking at? Bob Kirmis said this is something that is in place. Mr McAlpine said there are 24 of these conditions. Other people might have six or seven. Mr Lubke said there will be a chicken odor. Bob Kirmis explained further why these items were in the report. Gene Goenner asked if the City has authority to regulate it. Bob Kirmis said the City would make contact and it would be turned over to the State. Gene Goenner said maybe it is too restrictive, because the state regulates it. Ing Roskaft said it puts the party on notice that this is in the State law. If no complaints are made, nobody will be out there enforcing it. It is in the Ordinance. You need to inform the people what is in the Ord. or they can say you never told me about it. If it meets the Ordseveryone is happy with it. Bruce Rask talked about the enforcement of the Ord,and nuisance. ING ROSKAFT MOTIONED APPROVE THE PUD AND REZONING ON THIS PROPERTY FOR BRUCE LUBKE. DENNIS MC ALPINE SECONDED THE MOTION, DELETE NO 7 & 11 AND CLARIFICATION OF #10. :MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. This will be on Council Meeting of 7/25/94 at 7:30PM Dennis McAlpine said truck trailers are not to be utilized for storage. He doesn't know why that is in there. Bruce Lubke explained. Bob Kirmis said the intent is that we don't want semi truck trailers to become accessory buildings. 2 HEARING FOR MARY KNOSALLA P ON 1100 MONTICELLO, MN FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ONE PER FORTY SPLIT OF MORE THAN 2-1/2 ACRES PID #118-800-141400 SEC. 14, TAP 121, R 24. Carl Swenson explained. Elaine Beatty noted that the proper publications had been made. Bob Kirmis explained the request from NAC's Report of July 12, 1994. An accessory pole Bldg and a farm house will be with this split. CUP is to legalize the Pole Bldg to make the finding that the structure can compatibly exist on the site. Mr Kirmis read the items for justification of this split larger than 2-1/2 acres. He explained 1/2 of the lot is considered marginal. The 2-1/2 acre size could be achieved. The soil conditions warrant the 3.3 acre lot. 2 CUP's are being considered. (See attached information from page #2 and 3 of NAC's Report of July 12, 1994). C. If new access is provided it needs to receive approval from the County. h. The roadways are dedicated by easement. We are requesting right of way. C. Note, Consideration is given (for compatibility). CITY OF OTSEGO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUITES OF JULY 20, 1994 AT 8PM - PAGE 4 - HEARING OPENED TO THE PUBLIC. Anyone wished to be heard asked Chair Swenson? No one did. HEARING CLOSED AND BROUGHT BACK TO THE P.C. Bruce Rask said in A-1 can't you have a pole building on Ag? He brought up the Ag lot by Kolles. You said you can't regulate anyone in A-1. Bob Kirmis said the exemptions are made for farm use. He can't specifically address the other property you are referring to. There are requirements. Bruce Rask said he is bringing it up because he is confused. Carl Swenson said we should bring it back to the question. More discussion was had on the pole building issue. Arleen Nagel: said this pole building is already existing and we are allowing it to be built if burned down? Bob Kirmis explained and yes, we are allowing it to be a legal non -conformity. It is a technical area. We did not want to overlook it. More discussion. Gene Goenner - said he would rather see a legal non -conformity. Dennis McAlpine asked what would happen if the one down the road burnt down? Bob Kirmis said that if it was legally allowed by the City it could be rebuilt. Dennis McAlpine said then he has a problem with it. Gene Goenner felt if they are opting for residential use it should be allowed, but brought into compliance in the future. He disagreed with the CUP. He explained further. Bruce Rask is confused because of the other sheds that have gone in. More discussion was had. Bob Kirmis explained the difference and size issue. Bruce Rask said he is asking for consistency. Bob Kirmis said if we don't process A CUP we are allowing an illegal building. Bob Kirmis explained the use further. He said maybe on Pg. 2, we should eliminate the " in a A-1 Zoning District." ING Roskaft brought up: .July 1.5, 1994, Larry Koshak wrote it is recommended that the City be furnished an easement 50 over the ditch in the SE portion of the property. He asked if it was 50 " or 50' or what:' (It was determined it was 50'). Discussion of where the creek runs. Ing Roskaft said the ditch goes to #19. Doug Lindenfelser said it drains to the back of the property. The E side has a drainage swell there anyway. Gene Goenner asked about the 3.3 acre parcel or 3.1. The road easement is subtracted out, so it is 3.3 acres. What is the reasoning for the larger lot size`.' CITY OF OTSEGO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF JULY 20, 1994 AT SPM - PAGE 5 - David Schroeder said he is buying the property. There is a drainage ditch E - W across the lot and it would be hard to get in there with machinery to farm it. He wants to be able to control the starting of that ditch, because if it were stopped up it would run water into the basement. He explained how the ditch ran. From W lot line going to the E lot line, then it goes S right along that line. Doug Lindenfelser said on the Eastern side of the property there is a drainage swale. TWO MOTIONS: ING ROSKAFT MOTIONED TO GRANT THE RESIDENTIAL LOT FOR A CUP FOR A 3.3 ACRE RESIDENTIAL PARCEL OF LAND AS REQUESTED BY THE PETITIONER. GENE GOENNER SECONDED THE MOTION MOTION CARRIED, WITH BRUCE RASK OPPOSED, ALL OTHER MEMBERS IN FAVOR OF. ING ROSKAFT MOTIONED TO GRANT A CUP TO ALLOW A POLE BUILDING AS AN ACCESSORY TO A RESIDENTIAL USE IN THE A-1 ZONING DISTRICT AS REQUESTED BY THE PETITIONER. BRUCE RASK SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION DENIED WITH GENE GOENNER, BRUCE RASK, DENNIS MC ALPINE AND ARLEEN NAGEL OPPOSING ING ROSKAFT, CARL SWENSON AND JIM KOLLES IN FAVOR OF. CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA OF 7/25/94 AT 7:30PM. 3. ANY OTHER PLANNING COMMISSION BUSINESS: None 4. ADJOURN MEETING: ING ROSKAFT MOTIONED TO ADJOURN. BRUCE RASK SECONDED THE MOOTION. MOyT(ION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. GENE GOENNER, SECRETARY MINUTES BY: Elaine Beatty, Recording Secretary eb „ AGENDA ITEM it 1 Recommendation Based on the following review, our office recommends approval of the rezoning of the subject property (Parcels and 2) from A - Agricultural Rural Service to PUD, Planned Unit Development subject- to ubjectto the following conditions: 1. A total of nine off-street parking spaces are provided on the commercial parcel, one of which is devoted to use by the handicapped. A.11 off-street parking spaces shall be specifically identified on the submitted site plat_. 2. The City shall reser-,re the right to require the construction of additional off-street parking stalls if determined to be necessary. 3. All off-street parking areas are surfaced with asphalt, concrete, cobblestone, or paving bricks and provided a ccntinuoss concrete perimeter curb. 4. The submitted site plan is modified to identify a specific off-street loading space. 5. The following conditions are imposed on the catering business, outdoor storage area: a. The area is landscaped, fenced and screened from view of neighboring uses and public right-of-way. b. The storage area is surfaced with material suitable to control dust and drainage. C. The storage area does not take up required off-street parking or loading space. d. Storage of materials not owned by the app'icanc shall be prohibited. 6. Screening is provided in the northwestern corner of the s,.zbject parcel as illustrated on Exhibit F. 7. If either the residential parcel or commercial parcel are conveyed or sold independent of each ether, an inter_sificacion of screening be provided along the commercial parcel`s northern property line. 8. Al' trash and crash handling equipment is either stored within the principal commercial structure, within an accessoi-I building, or be totally screened from eye level view frcn: neighboring uses and the public rights-of-way. All desigran-ed 2 trash handling areas shall be identified on the submitted site plan. 9. Commercial use activities shall be prohibited upon the residential parcel. 10. At such time as one or both PUD are sold or conveyed longer retains ownership commercial of the subject issue should be subject Attorney. of the parcels which underlie the or the present business owner no of the catering business, the site shall be terminated. This to further comment by the City 11. Access to the residential parcel from County Road 37 is terminated. 12. while the city will consider applications to construct new buildings or building expansions on the commercial site through a PUD amendme nt process, such expansions shall be discouraged. 13. No direct c::stoser interaction take place on either the residential or commercial parcel. 14. No signage other than property identification is erected ups n the subject site. ;,5. Any smoke, odor or noise emanating from the catering fac4_14ty comply with applicable state regulations. 16. T're site plan is modified to identify exterior lighting locat:or_s. Any exterior lighting erected upon the subject site shall be arranged so as to deflect light away from adjoining residential uses and from public streets. 17. The City Engineer provide comment and recommendation in regard to the acceptability of the easement encroachments which exist on the residential parcel. 1c. All recommendations of the City Engineer relating to water supply and sewage treatment issues are satisfact ozily met. If deemed necessary, the City Engineer or his designared agent shall conduct a site inspection to determine compliance with applicable ordinance provisions. 19. Ail recommendations of the City Engineer relating to site drainage are satisfactorily fret. Of particular issue is the impact that the con=.ercial parcel's depression (former feedlot) may have upon site drainage. 3 20. The site plan is modified to illustrate the accessory building which lies to the southwest of the commercial catering facility. Such building shall be confined to the site's designated outdoor storage area. 21. Truck trailers are not to be utilized for the purpose of accessory storage. 22. The applicant/property owner enter into a development agreement and furnish the security required by it. 23. The 37 foot wide curb cut access to the commercial parce-1 is approved by the City Engineer. 24. Comments from other City staff. Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc U R B A N PLANNI NG • DES I G N • MARKET RESEARC h PLANNING REPORT ADDENDUM TO: Otsego Mayor and City Council Otsego Planning Commission FROM: David Licht DATE: 20 July 1994 RE: Otsego - Lubke PUD FILE NO: 176.02 - 94.13 The City Attorney's office has requested that we clarify the background and purpose of the proposed Stipulation No. 10 contained in our office's planning report dated 14 July 1994. The item in question reads as follows: 10. At such time as one or both of the parcels which underlie the PUD are sold or conveyed or the present business owner no longer retains ownership of the catering business, the commercial of the subject site shall be terminated. This issue should be subject to further comment by the City Attorney. As documented in our report, the catering business is an illegal non -conforming commercial use which apparently started as a home occupation or home extended business and has evolved into a business operation which is far beyond an activity which is allowed in an agricultural or residential zoning district. Given the illegal status plus the directives of the Comprehensive Plan that the area in question will not have commercial use or zoning, the basic objective of the City is to terminate the catering business at its present location. It should be noted in this regard that when this matter was first addressed at a staff meeting between the property owner, the Zoning Administrator, and the City Planner, an offer was made for the City to provide economic development assistance to relocate the use to an area which conformed to City plans and zoning. The Lubkes, however, rejected this offer in view of the investments involved as well as their willingness to terminate the use upon their eventual quitting of the business. In light of these considerations and in keeping with the City's policy to work with both legal and illegal non -conforming businesses, staff offered the PUD rezoning approach as a means to achieve both the property owners' and City's objectives. The PUD is proposed to require site improvements which will enhance compatibility with neighboring properties. Simultaneously, it will allow the owners to amortize their business investments. From the City's perspective, a termination of the illegal non -conforming use will eventually be realized. Additionally, any future change in use of the commercial buildings, which pose some significant concerns, will also be subject to City review and approval. Staff' s view of this matter is that the PUD zoning mechanism offers a realistic and practical solution. Also essential to the staff determination to offer PUD rezoning to that illegally established business is the fact that during the majority of the time that the business was established and expanded, it was under Wright County jurisdiction, and more importantly, that the applicant has willingly agreed to terminate the business upon conveyance of the property or at such time as they terminate the business. A written agreement to this effect is an essential element of approval of the PUD rezoning. The basic alternative is to immediately terminate the use. Such action is viewed as too harsh a measure and might also involve substantial litigation and costs which would serve little benefit to either party. If there are any further questions regarding the basis of proposed action or any other aspect of this case, please contact our office accordingly. Staff representatives will also be in attendance at your respective meetings to address this case and recommendations in greater detail. pc: Elaine Beatty Andrew MacArthur Jerry Olson Larry Koshak Bruce and Mary Lubke 2 „ AGENDA ITEM # 2 Recommendation Based on the following review, our office recommends approval of the following: 1. A conditional use permit to allow a residential lot size greater than 2 1/2 acres in an A-1 Zoning District subject to the following conditions: a. To prohibit further subdivision, a deed restriction is placed on the land exercising its development right. Such restriction shall be in force until such time as the property is rezoned. b. The applicant receive administrative approval from the City Zoning Administrator of the proposed subdivision in accordance with applicable A-1 lot standards. C. To accommodate any new or relocated access to either Parcel A or B, an access permit is obtained from the Wright County Highway Department. d. The site survey is modified to illustrate septic system and well locations. e. A determination is made by the City Engineer and/or Building official that the subject site is capable of accommodating a private well and septic system. f. The City Engineer provide recommendation in regard to drainage and utility easement establishment. All site easements shall be subject to approval by the City Engineer. = g. The proposed subdivision is subject to park dedication requirements as determined by the Park and Recreation Committee. h. The existing street easements which overlay County Road 39 (50 feet) and County Road 19 (41.25 feet) are formally dedicated as public right-of-way. i. Comments from other City staff. 2. A conditional use permit to allow a "pole building” as an accessory to a residential use a. An administrative permit is pursued to allow a detached accessory structure between 1,000 and 1,500 square feet to exist in conjunction with a single family use. 2 b. For aesthetic reasons, consideration is given to matching the accessory building and the site's principal building in color. C. The accessory structure is not utilized for commercial or home occupation except as expressly allowed by the City Zoning Ordinance. d. Comments from other city staff.